Judgment : Banerjee, J. : The applicant presented this appeal with an application for leave to appeal as the applicant was not a party in the writ petition. This appeal is being preferred against the order dated 14th August, 1992. On 14th August, 1992, all interim order of injunction was passed by the learned Trial Judge. It is stated that in view of the said interim order the Regional Transport authority will convert the temporary permits into permanent permit in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder. It was alleged that originally some temporary permits were granted in respect of some vehicles and that the subsequent permit was issued in respect of some of the writ petitioners, wherein a new vehicle was substituted in place of the old vehicle and that it was alleged that such issue of temporary permit was in contravention of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and further it was alleged that the right conferred to file objection and representation against such grant of permanent permit under the provisions of West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 has been taken away. The question is whether leave could be granted to prefer an appeal against the order in question which does not directly effect the interest of the Applicant. The applicant No. 1 is an Association of Minibus owners in Siliguri District which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act represented by its Joint Secretary Ashis Kumar Roy. The second petitioner is Ashis Kumar Roy who is the Secretary of the applicant No.1. Applicant No.3 is another association known as Siliguri Dooars Minibus Owners' Association and the applicant No.4 is Secretary of the applicant No.3. Before any leave could be granted to prefer an appeal against the said order, it is also necessary to examine whethere the applicants have any locus standi to file this application and to prefer an appeal as the persons aggrieved and that whether the association can maintain such an appeal. 2. The applicants' case is that because of the order passed by this court the Regional Transport Authority issued permit in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 and the rules framed thereunder. 2. The applicants' case is that because of the order passed by this court the Regional Transport Authority issued permit in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 and the rules framed thereunder. In order to test this proposition whether the applicants have locus standi, the test is whether the applicants could file a writ application against the proposed action of the Regional Transport Authority and that if the applicants have a locus standi to file writ application, in that event, it must be held that the appellant can be said to be aggrieved by the order in question and can prefer this appeal being persons seriously affected by the order. 3. Appeal is a statutory right. But a stranger can prefer an appeal under certain conditions. In this connection, reference may be made to the observation of Lindley, L. J. (1) In re : Securities Insurance Company, (1894) 2 CH 410 wherein it was observed that "I understand the practice to be perfectly well settled that a person who is a party can appeal (of course within the proper time) without any leave and that a person who without being a party is either bound by the order or is aggrieved by it or it prejudicially affected by it cannot appeal without leave. It does not require much to obtain leave. If a person alleging himself to be aggrieved by an order, can make out even a Primafacie case why he should have leave he will get it, but without leave he is not entitled to appeal". This principle is followed by the Supreme Court in the case of (2) State of Punjab v. Aman Singh reported in AIR 1974 SC 994 . Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of (3) Sm. Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Property reported in AIR 1971 SC 734. 4. The question is whether the applicants have been able to make out a prima facie case without being a party or bound by the order or aggrieved by it or prejudicially affected by it. Let us examine in the facts of this case whether this case comes within the scope of the principle laid down in above case. 5. 4. The question is whether the applicants have been able to make out a prima facie case without being a party or bound by the order or aggrieved by it or prejudicially affected by it. Let us examine in the facts of this case whether this case comes within the scope of the principle laid down in above case. 5. In the instant case, the Association is not bound by the order, secondly it does not appear that the association itself can be said to be aggrieved or prejudicially affected by it. Association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is a separate and distinct legal entity apart from its members. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 an association was given some limited right of representation under sec. 47(1) of that Act, but subsequently that was amended and the right of representation by the association of operators was deleted. Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 did not provide any right upon the association of operators to file objection and/or to make representation and that it is not the requirement of law that such association is to be heard before the Regional Transport authority and the authority can tale a decision in the matter. Further before a leave is granted to prefer an appeal against the order, it has to be seen whether the applicant was a necessary party in the writ application. In view of the relief claimed in the writ application, it does not appear that the applicants were either proper or necessary parties to the writ application. A stranger cannot come forward and cannot apply for additional party unless it is established that the determination made in the writ application will affect his interest directly or indirectly and/or is likely to be prejudicially affected by the decision in question. If he cannot make out a case that he was a proper and necessary party in the writ application, it is not entitled to prefer an appeal after obtaining leave. The applicant Nos. 1 and 3 are association of operators. The operators in such rule are all rivals in the trade. The rivals in trade have no locus standi to move the court, even if the Regionable Transport Authority or any other authority acts in contravention of the provisions of law. The applicant Nos. 1 and 3 are association of operators. The operators in such rule are all rivals in the trade. The rivals in trade have no locus standi to move the court, even if the Regionable Transport Authority or any other authority acts in contravention of the provisions of law. In the case of (4) J. M. Desai v. Roshan Kumar reported in AIR 1976 SC 578 Supreme Court held that "rival in the trade has no locus standi to move a writ application and further stated that if such discretionary remedy is exercised in favour of the rival in the trade, that would be against public policy. It will eliminate healthy competition in this business which is essential to raise commercial morality. It will tend to perpetuate the appellant's monopoly of same as against other and that it would affect the fundamental right of a person against wham such a relief is claimed guaranteed under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India to carryon trade or business. Further in the case of (5) Nagpur Rice and Flour Mills v. N. T. Gowda reported in AIR 1971 SC 246 wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that a rice mills owner has no locus standi to challenge under article 226, the setting up of a new rice mill by another, even if such setting up be in contravention of section 8(3)(c) of Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 because no right vested in such an applicant is infringed". 6. In the instant case, even assuming that the said Association was rival in the trade. They cannot have any cause of action. Further the association cannot have any stamina. An association can be formed to protect the interest of the consumers or operators, but such group cannot move a writ application. No aspect of the administrative law has been changing more rapidly than the law governing standing and the standing barrier has been substantially lowered in recent year, but on the basis of the law relating to standing as in England or in America as also in India, it can be held without any difficulty that the writ petition at the instance of an association is not maintainable where the association itself is not affected by any order. The member of such association may be affected by common order and may have common grievance, but for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the members, writ petition at the instance of such association is not maintainable. The door of the writ court could be made open at the instance of persons or authorities who have no locus standi to move the writ application. The law relating to standing or locus standi had been considered in the case of (6) Sand Carrier's Owners' Union v. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta reported in AIR 1990 Cal 176 . Individual can be said to be aggrieved by any action or inaction on the part of the authority if he has right to infringe. Similarly partnership firm company, corporation, labour union etc. can file writ application if their rights are directly affected. There are cases where the statute might have conferred standing or locus standi to any association or persons who may not have a direct personal interest can maintain writ application if it is established that such person or association had been conferred under the statute certain right and that if that right has been infringed. That part writ petition will be moved on the category of public interest and citizen participation and the last category was representative action or class action. In public interest litigation, writ application cannot be filed to serve some by private interest of the parties. In case of representative action or class action, any member of the class affected by any order or action or inaction on the part of the authorities concerned can file a writ application and in such a case a large number of persons of the same class may be affected by any action and in such case anyone member of that class can file writ application and can prosecute the same as representative application after obtaining leave of the court. This is permitted by law to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and in such case any decision taken in such case binds the members of class. Right to maintain a writ petition postulate a personal right. This is permitted by law to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and in such case any decision taken in such case binds the members of class. Right to maintain a writ petition postulate a personal right. Exception to the rule is that a person who has been prejudicially affected by any act or omission of an authority can file a writ even though he has no proprietory or even fiduciary interest in the subject matter (See (7) Gadde Venkataswera Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 828 .). 7. No case has also been made as to how the individual members of the association who are the operators are being affected by the order of the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge has directed that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court the operators who are granted successive temporary permits, their permits had to be made permanent. The association is representing the operators who are plying vehicles and unless a case is made out that even when individual operat0rs are seriously affected by any judgment no leave can be granted, in this connection on the question of locus standi of the operators to maintain a writ application reference was made to a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of (8) The Quilon District Private Bus Operators Association, Kollam-I v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 Kerala 267 wherein it has been held by K. Sreedharan, J. that any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of same provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such constitutional or legal provision and it was further held that the association of private bus operators registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which approaches the High Court not to protect any particular interest of the members of the society but to highlight the illegality committed by the Regional Authority in granting permit to a Co-operative society in violation of the statutory prohibition contained in section 71(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act has locus standi to move the High Court challenging the grant of permit. In that case the Kerala High Court has considered a case where the operators were not directly or indirectly affected but the Kerala High Court had not taken into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of J. M. Desai v. Rosham Kumar (supra) as well as in the case of Nagpur Rice and Flour Mills v. N T. Gowda (Supra) wherein the Supreme Court had clearly laid down the principle that rival in the trade has no locus standi to file a writ application and when association of operators moves a writ application being rival in the trade and for the purpose of eliminating operators from the route on any ground whatsoever was hit by the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above two cases. Unless the statute expressly confers any right to the competitor, the competitor has no locus standi to complain. Unfortunately under the Motor Vehicles act and/or any other law such a right had not been conferred on the rival in the trade. The principles of public interest litigation could not be invoked to subserve the private interest of the parties. Accordingly we are unable to follow the principles laid down by the Kerala High Court in this behalf. In the application for leave to appeal or before us no case has been made out that the applicants without being party were either bound by the order or was aggrieved by the said order and/or were pre-judicially affected by the said order. 8. In our view, the association of mini bus owners cannot be granted leave to prefer an appeal when the association itself is not affected by the order passed by the learned trial Judge and unless it can be established that the association is prejudicially affected by the order passed by the learned trial Judge, the right of the association has been infringed. The association cannot have any right to complain and we do not find any reason whatsoever why the association can feel itself aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Judge. If the association has not been conferred any right under the statute and if the association is net affected by the order, the association cannot come forward before this court alleging that the association is aggrieved. If the association has not been conferred any right under the statute and if the association is net affected by the order, the association cannot come forward before this court alleging that the association is aggrieved. It is one thing to say that individual operator is aggrieved and it is quite different thing to say that the association is aggrieved and the association cannot be said to be aggrieved if some of the members of the association are aggrieved, inasmuch as the association is a separate and legal entity and the right of an individual member cannot be equated with the right of association 9. Accordingly, we are of the view that the applicant being association of operators have no locus standi to prefer an appeal after obtaining a leave from this court. Leave can only be granted if the court is satisfied that a stranger even though he was not a party, is seriously affected by the order and that the order would have binding effect upon a stranger. In the instant case, the order does not affect the right of the association nor the association is affected by the order. 10. Accordingly, the application for leave to prefer an appeal is rejected and the appeal is not entertained. No order need also be passed on the application for stay. 11. The other similar fourteen applications filed in F. M. A. T. Nos. 2708-21/92 shall also be governed by the above order. Let a xerox copy of this order be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on usual terms and conditions. Jain, J.: I agree.